Ondansetron does not reduce the shivering threshold in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND: Ondansetron, a serotonin-3 receptor antagonist, reduces postoperative shivering. Drugs that reduce shivering usually impair central thermoregulatory control, and may thus be useful for preventing shivering during induction of therapeutic hypothermia. We determined, therefore, whether ondansetron reduces the major autonomic thermoregulatory response thresholds (triggering core temperatures) in humans. METHODS: Control (placebo) and ondansetron infusions at the target plasma concentration of 250 ng ml(-1) were studied in healthy volunteers on two different days. Each day, skin and core temperatures were increased to provoke sweating; then reduced to elicit peripheral vasoconstriction and shivering. We determined the core-temperature sweating, vasoconstriction and shivering thresholds after compensating for changes in mean-skin temperature. Data were analysed using t-tests and presented as means (sds); P<0.05 was taken as significant. RESULTS: Ondensetron plasma concentrations were 278 (57), 234 (55) and 243 (58) ng ml(-1) at the sweating, vasoconstriction and shivering thresholds, respectively; these corresponded to approximately 50 mg of ondansetron which is approximately 10 times the dose used for postoperative nausea and vomiting. Ondansetron did not change the sweating (control 37.4 (0.4) degrees C, ondansetron 37.6 (0.3) degrees C, P=0.16), vasoconstriction (37.0 (0.5) degrees C vs 37.1 (0.3) degrees C; P=0.70), or shivering threshold (36.3 (0.5) degrees C vs 36.3 (0.6) degrees C; P=0.76). No sedation was observed on either study day. CONCLUSIONS: /b>. Ondansetron appears to have little potential for facilitating induction of therapeutic hypothermia.

Meperidine and skin surface warming additively reduce the shivering threshold: a volunteer study

INTRODUCTION: Mild therapeutic hypothermia has been shown to improve outcome for patients after cardiac arrest and may be beneficial for ischaemic stroke and myocardial ischaemia patients. However, in the awake patient, even a small decrease of core temperature provokes vigorous autonomic reactions-vasoconstriction and shivering-which both inhibit efficient core cooling. Meperidine and skin warming each linearly lower vasoconstriction and shivering thresholds. We tested whether a combination of skin warming and a medium dose of meperidine additively would reduce the shivering threshold to below 34 degrees C without producing significant sedation or respiratory depression. METHODS: Eight healthy volunteers participated on four study days: (1) control, (2) skin warming (with forced air and warming mattress), (3) meperidine (target plasma level: 0.9 mug/ml), and (4) skin warming plus meperidine (target plasma level: 0.9 mug/ml). Volunteers were cooled with 4 degrees C cold Ringer lactate infused over a central venous catheter (rate asymptotically equal to 2.4 degrees C/hour core temperature drop). Shivering threshold was identified by an increase of oxygen consumption (+20% of baseline). Sedation was assessed with the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale. RESULTS: Control shivering threshold was 35.5 degrees C +/- 0.2 degrees C. Skin warming reduced the shivering threshold to 34.9 degrees C +/- 0.5 degrees C (p = 0.01). Meperidine reduced the shivering threshold to 34.2 degrees C +/- 0.3 degrees C (p < 0.01). The combination of meperidine and skin warming reduced the shivering threshold to 33.8 degrees C +/- 0.2 degrees C (p < 0.01). There were no synergistic or antagonistic effects of meperidine and skin warming (p = 0.59). Only very mild sedation occurred on meperidine days. CONCLUSION: A combination of meperidine and skin surface warming reduced the shivering threshold to 33.8 degrees C +/- 0.2 degrees C via an additive interaction and produced only very mild sedation and no respiratory toxicity.

Oral misoprostol for third stage of labor: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether orally administered misoprostol during the third stage of labor is efficient in reducing postpartum blood loss. METHODS: In a double-masked trial, during vaginal delivery women were randomly assigned to receive a single oral dose of misoprostol (600 microg) or placebo in third stage of labor, immediately after cord clamping. The third stage of labor was managed routinely by early cord clamping and controlled cord traction; oxytocin was administered only if blood loss seemed more than usual. Blood loss was estimated by the delivering physician and differences in hematocrit were measured before and after delivery. RESULTS: Mean (+/- standard error of the mean) estimated blood loss (345 +/- 19.5 mL versus 417 +/- 25.9 mL, P = .031) and hematocrit difference (4.5 +/- 0.9% versus 7.9 +/- 1.2%, P = .014) were significantly lower in women who received misoprostol than those who received placebo. Fewer women in the misoprostol group had postpartum hemorrhage (blood loss of at least 500 mL), but that difference was not statistically significant (7% versus 15%, P = .43). Additional oxytocin before or after placental separation was used less often in the misoprostol group (16% versus 38%, P = .047). There were no differences in the length of third stage of labor (8 +/- 0.9 minutes versus 9 +/- 1 minutes, P = .947). There were no differences in pain during third stage of labor, postpartum fever, or diarrhea, but shivering was more frequent in the misoprostol group. CONCLUSION: Oral misoprostol administered in the third stage of labor reduced postpartum blood loss and might be effective in reducing incidence of postpartum hemorrhage.

Resistive polymer versus forced-air warming: comparable heat transfer and core rewarming rates in volunteers

BACKGROUND: Mild perioperative hypothermia increases the risk of several severe complications. Perioperative patient warming to preserve normothermia has thus become routine, with forced-air warming being used most often. In previous studies, various resistive warming systems have shown mixed results in comparison with forced-air. Recently, a polymer-based resistive patient warming system has been developed. We compared the efficacy of a standard forced-air warming system with the resistive polymer system in volunteers. METHODS: Eight healthy volunteers participated, each on two separate study days. Unanesthetized volunteers were cooled to a core temperature (tympanic membrane) of 34 degrees C by application of forced-air at 10 degrees C and a circulating-water mattress at 4 degrees C. Meperidine and buspirone were administered to prevent shivering. In a randomly designated order, volunteers were then rewarmed (until their core temperatures reached 36 degrees C) with one of the following active warming systems: (1) forced-air warming (Bair Hugger warming cover #300, blower #750, Arizant, Eden Prairie, MN); or (2) polymer fiber resistive warming (HotDog whole body blanket, HotDog standard controller, Augustine Biomedical, Eden Prairie, MN). The alternate system was used on the second study day. Metabolic heat production, cutaneous heat loss, and core temperature were measured. RESULTS: Metabolic heat production and cutaneous heat loss were similar with each system. After a 30-min delay, core temperature increased nearly linearly by 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.91-1.04) degrees C/h with forced-air and by 0.92 (0.85-1.00) degrees C/h with resistive heating (P = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: Heating efficacy and core rewarming rates were similar with full-body forced-air and full-body resistive polymer heating in healthy volunteers.